Beware cynical use of 'kindness' as a weapon to bring emotion into serious debate on assisted dying

Forthcoming assisted dying bills show how proponents will frame cold consideration of a difficult and important question as callous

Who could argue against the proposition that the world would be a better place if only there was a little more kindness to go round? These are, after all, deeply divided times.

In Scotland, the constitutional argument has split communities and even families. South of the border, right-wing populists demonise minorities, deploying racist dogwhistles concealed within expressions of “legitimate concern”. And furth of British shores, demagogues and religious fundamentalists conduct wars in which innocent people are dying every day.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

So isn’t it refreshing – cleansing, even – to hear a politician or activist call for less anger and more compassion? Shouldn’t we all try to be kind?

It’s certainly how I try – not always successfully – to conduct myself. I’m sure you’re the same.

For all that, I’m increasingly of the view that two of the most dangerous words in current political debate are “be kind”.

Often, when someone urges us so to be, they’re not making their case but using emotional blackmail to conceal its flaws. Take the ongoing row over the conflict between women’s rights and the demands of gender ideologists, for example. When trans rights activists urge us to be kind, they want us to stop talking – even thinking – about the negative consequences of their campaign. They squirm out of difficult debates about male rapists in female prisons and the medicalisation of children confused about their developing bodies and, instead, paint a crude picture of themselves as righteous and those who disagree with them as cruel and inhuman.

This corruption of the idea of kindness allows “allies” to ignore and even excuse violent threats and physical attacks on gender critical feminists. If only those women had been kind then there would be no need for any of that horrible stuff.

I fear this cynical distortion of what it means to be compassionate is going to dominate – and undermine – discussion of the deeply sensitive issue of an individual’s “right to die”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Reaction to the announcement MPs are to vote on the matter of assisted dying made my heart sink.

A bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, which aims to give terminally ill people “choice at the end of life” will be tabled on October 16 and already it’s clear those in favour of assisted dying wish to make this a discussion about kindness rather than cold consideration of a difficult question.

The National Secular Society was quick to offer its support to the MP, enthusing about a change in the law.

“We welcome news,” the charity stated on social media, “that Kim Leadbeater will bring forward compassionate and safe legislation to allow for assisted dying. We'll work to support patient autonomy and prevent those suffering from having their choices limited [by] other people's religious beliefs.”

Those words made me shudder. For an organisation concerned with ensuring religious beliefs do not influence decision makers, the assertion that the proposed legislation will be “compassionate and safe” seems awfully like a declaration of faith to me.

Central to my opposition to a change in the law on this issue is deep uncertainty over how such a system could be guaranteed to be compassionate and safe.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

As for the society’s words about preventing those who wish to end their lives having their choices limited by the religious beliefs of others, well, that’s about as cynical as it gets. It’s a crude attempt to frame this debate, from the get go, as being about modern compassion versus conservative doctrine.

It is entirely possible to be an atheist and to oppose assisted dying. I do it every day and I know I’m not unique.

The Tory MP Kit Malthouse is a great supporter of the legalisation of assisted dying. Of course, he’s perfectly entitled to be, but his reaction to news of the coming debate was even more troubling than the statement put out by the secularists.

“I will stand,” Malthouse wrote on social media, “four square with Kim, as will millions of people who are on the side of compassion and humanity. The law must change in the name of love.”

Are those of us – religious, atheist, able-bodied, disabled, young and old – who do not think assisted dying should become law to be considered opponents of “compassion and humanity”? Is our concern about the implications of making it legal to end a human life to be thought of as cruel?

I’m afraid it is. Those in favour of assisted dying are already painting themselves as members of a compassionate, progressive movement and framing their opponents as out-of-touch and callous.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

I’m afraid it will be difficult for opponents to change that narrative. MPs supportive of Leadbeater’s bill will tell heart-breaking stories of constituents forced to watch loved ones die in pain and then urge us all to be kind.

What do those of us who oppose have to counter that? We have the fear that the legalisation of assisted dying will be abused, that mistakes will be made, that people will die unnecessarily and, in some cases, against their wishes. I’m afraid we have nothing but our knowledge of millennia of human fallibility to back our position.

The people displaying blind faith, in this instance, are those who wish to see Leadbeater’s plan become law.

A similar bill – introduced by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur – is currently being discussed by our representatives at Holyrood. The current mood, I think, favours those who support McArthur.

The strongest argument against the return of the death penalty is that mistakes will be made. We know that, in the past, many innocent people were wrongly sent to the gallows.

We don’t reinstate capital punishment not merely because we’re too civilised for that kind of thing, but because we cannot be certain that mistakes will not be made.

But such fears are to be dismissed when it comes to assisted dying. Instead, we are to be kind even if being kind means also being dangerously reckless.

Comments

 0 comments

Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.